THE TESTING OF A PRESIDENT

THE TESTING OF A PRESIDENT; Excerpts From Debate on Plan to Begin an Impeachment Inquiry

Published: October 9, 1998

(Page 3 of 9)

The Watergate model was chosen because that was what was demanded by my friends from across the aisle. This resolution does not direct the committee to go into any additional areas, but it does give the committee the authority to carry out its responsibility and to bring this matter to a conclusion without further delay . . .

Did the President participate in a scheme to obstruct justice? Did the President commit perjury? Do these allegations, if proven, constitute impeachable offenses? We can answer these questions in a fair and bipartisan manner and that is my commitment. People say this is not Watergate. That's true. Every case is different. But the rule of law and our obligation to it does not change. They do not change because of position, personalities or power. The rule of law and justice depends upon this truth. I ask my colleagues to support the resolution.

Representative Zoe Lofgren

Democrat of California

Many of us have labored very hard to craft a plan that would allow us to deal with the referral of the independent counsel in a way that is focused, in a way that is fair, in a way that's prompt and efficient and most of all, in a way that puts our Constitution first.

I am very distressed to say that I do not see that that is going to happen today in these chambers. I fear that what Hamilton warned against, Alexander Hamilton warned against in 65 Federalist Paper, that there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties than the real demonstration of innocence or guilt. That prophesy, that fear is about to be realized.

I believe that the majority has used its raw voting power to create a proposal that could result in a wide ranging and lengthy impeachment inquiry. The Judiciary Committee may become the standing committee on impeachments, and a further fear is that the rules in the Constitution may never be applied to the referral that has been sent to us. Or even worse, we may end up as happened Monday with the majority counsel creating entirely new rules for high crimes and misdemeanors, which will have a very serious distorting effect on our constitutional system of Government.

When we are lost, the best thing to do is to look to our Constitution as a beacon of light and a guideline to get us through trying times. Impeachment historically was to be used for when the misconduct of the executive was so severe that it threatened the very constitutional system of government itself. Ben Franklin described it as the alternative to assassination.

It is that standard that needs to be applied in this case. The question is not whether the President's misconduct was bad. We all know that the President's misconduct was bad. The question is, Are we going to punish America instead of him for his misconduct?

Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Republican of Florida

Our laws promise a remedy against sexual harassment. But if we say that lying about sex in court is acceptable or even expected, then we have made our sexual harassment laws nothing more than a false promise, a fraud upon our society, upon our legal system and upon women.

Lying under oath and obstruction of justice are ancient crimes of great weight because they shield other offenses, blocking the light of truth in human affairs. They are a dagger in the heart of our legal system and our democracy. They cannot and must not be tolerated. The office of the Presidency is due great respect, but the President is a citizen with the same duty to follow the laws as all other citizens. The world marvels that our President is not above the law, and my vote today helps assure that this rule continues.

Representative Bill McCollum

Republican of Florida

The question for us today is not whether or not the President committed impeachable offenses or whether or not we're here to impeach. The question is, Do the allegations that have been presented to us by Kenneth Starr and his report merit further consideration?

Some would have you believe today that even if all of those allegations were proven to be true that the answer is 'no.' They're wrong. The issue before us when we consider this matter is not Monica Lewinsky. The issue is not sex, the issue is not whether the President committed adultery or betrayed his wife.

The issue is, Did the President of the United States commit the felony crime of perjury by lying under oath in a deposition in a sexual harassment case? The issue is, Did the President of the United States commit the felony crime of perjury by lying under oath to a grand jury? The issue is, Did the President of the United States commit a felony crime of obstructing justice or the felony crime of witness tampering? And if he did, are these high crimes and misdemeanors that deserve impeachment? . . .

If he is judged to have committed a high crime and misdemeanor for committing these other crimes of perjury, we will have determined that indeed he is no longer the legal officer at the highest pinnacle of this country. Because to leave him sitting there is to undermine the very judicial system we have. It is to convey the message that perjury is O.K. Certainly at least perjury in certain matters and under certain circumstances.

It is not O.K. It is a very serious crime. Obstructing justice is, witness tampering is . . .